Law Society of Singapore v Seow Theng Beng Samuel

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 18 May 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGHC 112
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 28 February 2022
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 4 of 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Dhillon Dinesh Singh, Loong Tse Chuan and Alisa Toh Qian Wen (Dai Qianwen) (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Pereira Edmond Avethas and Cheung Shu Jia Jessica (Edmond Pereira Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Disciplinary proceedings
• Published date: 21 May 2022

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

C3J/OS 4/2020 (“OS 4”) is an application by the Law Society of Singapore (the “Law Society”) for the respondent to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), in relation to eight instances of misconduct against his employees. The respondent was charged in relation to these instances of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal, which found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action.

Having heard the parties and having considered their submissions, we are satisfied that there is due cause for the respondent to be sanctioned, and that the appropriate sanction is for him to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. In this judgment, we elaborate more generally on the considerations that warrant an order striking off a legal practitioner, and why the respondent has engaged those considerations.

Background

The respondent is a solicitor of 20 years’ standing. At the material time, he was the Managing Director of Samuel Seow Law Corporation (“SSLC”). He also owned and managed a talent management company known as Beam Artistes Pte Ltd (“Beam Artistes”), which shared the same office premises as SSLC.

The eight instances of misconduct which form the basis of the Law Society’s application occurred in a one-month period running from 16 March 2018 to 17 April 2018. They may be summarised as follows: On 16 March 2018, at about 7pm, the respondent threw files and boxes on the floor in the general direction of one Ms Kang Pei Shan Rachel (“Ms Kang”), an employee of Beam Artistes, and screamed at Ms Kang (the subject of the “First Charge”). On 26 March 2018, sometime in the afternoon, the respondent threw a metal stapler on the floor in the general direction of Ms Kang (the subject of the “Second Charge”). On 28 March 2018, at about 3pm, the respondent threw a metal stapler on the floor in the general direction of Ms Kang (the subject of the “Third Charge”). On 28 March 2018, at about 9pm, the respondent shouted at Ms Kang, and advanced towards Ms Kang in an aggressive and/or threatening manner such that Ms Kang stumbled and fell to the floor (the subject of the “Fourth Charge”). On 3 April 2018, at about 8pm, the respondent repeatedly threw his wallet in the general direction of Ms Kang, and threatened to take a knife to kill Ms Kang (the subject of the “Fifth Charge”). On 17 April 2018, at about 5.47pm, the respondent jabbed Ms Kang’s forehead with his finger and pushed the files that Ms Kang was holding against her chest (the subject of the “Sixth Charge”). On 17 April 2018, at about 5.54pm, the respondent voluntarily caused hurt to one Ms Kong Shin Ying Brenda (“Ms Kong”), his niece and an associate of SSLC at the material time, by grabbing her arms, pushing her against a table, repeatedly slapping her, jabbing his finger at Ms Kong’s forehead and pushing Ms Kong with his shoulder such that she lost balance and fell backwards, and aggressively berated and screamed at Ms Kong (the subject of the “Seventh Charge”). On 17 April 2018, at about 5.58pm, the respondent pushed one Ms Tan Tzuu Yen Serene (“Ms Tan”), a secretary and conveyancing executive employed by SSLC, with such force that she fell to the floor, and aggressively berated and screamed at Ms Tan (the subject of the “Eighth Charge”).

In respect of each instance of misconduct, the Law Society brought: A principal charge under s 83(2)(b)(i) of the LPA (relating to breaches of any usage or rule of conduct made by the Professional Conduct Council under s 71 of the LPA; the rule of conduct said to be breached was r 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (2010 Rev Ed), namely that a legal practitioner must not act towards any person in a way which is fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honourable profession); and An alternative charge under s 83(2)(h) of the LPA (relating to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession).

A disciplinary tribunal heard the matter from 14 to 16 August 2019 and on 26 September 2019 and 19 November 2019. On the first day of the hearing, the respondent pleaded guilty to the Sixth to Eighth Charges, as well as the part of the Fifth Charge relating to his threat to take a knife to kill Ms Kang, while contesting the remaining charges. Subsequently, on 19 November 2019, the respondent pleaded guilty to the remaining charges.

On 10 March 2020, the disciplinary tribunal issued its report, in which it found that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action under s 93(1)(c) of the LPA.

The Law Society then filed OS 4 for an order pursuant to s 94(1) read with s 98(1) of the LPA that the respondent be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA.

On 27 July 2020, the respondent pleaded guilty to criminal charges arising out of the events reflected in the Fifth to Eighth Charges. This led to a Newton hearing regarding the evidence he led in relation to his psychiatric state at the material time. In C3J/SUM 2/2021, the respondent sought an order that the hearing of OS 4 be held in abeyance, pending the completion of the Newton hearing. In Seow Theng Beng Samuel v Law Society of Singapore [2021] SGHC 258, we dismissed the respondent’s application, holding that he had failed to establish any real risk of serious prejudice to the conduct of OS 4 or the Newton hearing to warrant OS 4 being held in abeyance.

We heard the parties on 28 February 2022. The respondent was represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam at the hearing, although he appointed new solicitors shortly thereafter (see [20]–[21] below).

Issues in this application

There are two issues in OS 4: Whether there is due cause for disciplinary action under ss 83(2)(b)(i) and 83(2)(h) of the LPA; and If so, the appropriate sanction to be imposed against the respondent under s 83(1) of the LPA.

The Law Society submits that there is due cause for disciplinary action, and seeks to have the respondent struck off the roll, or in the alternative to have the respondent suspended from practice for a minimum of four years. The respondent, on the other hand, suggests that there is no due cause, though he submits that if due cause is found, an appropriate sanction would be a penalty of $40,000 and censure.

Whether there is due cause for disciplinary action Applicable standards

At the time of the misconduct, ss 83(2)(b)(i) and 83(2)(h) of the LPA provided that:

Power to strike off roll, etc.

83.— …(2) ... such due cause may be shown by proof that an advocate and solicitor —

…

(b) has been guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty or guilty of such a breach of any of the following as amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor: (i) any usage or rule of conduct made by the Professional Conduct Council under section 71 or by the Council under the provisions of this Act;

…

(h) has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession;

…

In Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee [2018] 5 SLR 1261 (“Wong Sin Yee”) at [23]–[24], we made the following observations as to what would amount to “due cause” under ss 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h): 23 Section 83(2)(b) of the LPA focuses on whether the conduct of the lawyer is ‘dishonourable to [him] as a man or dishonourable in his profession’ (Re Han Ngiap Juan [1993] 1 SLR(R) 135 at [25]). In this case, the primary charge is for ‘grossly improper conduct’ in relation to his profession, while the second alternative charge is for ‘improper conduct’ due to the serious breach of professional rules, specifically r 61(a) of the PCR. Conduct may be grossly improper notwithstanding that there is no dishonesty, fraud or deceit (Re Han Ngiap Juan at [27]). 24 Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA is broader than s 83(2)(b). It is a ‘catch-all provision’ operating when a solicitor’s conduct does not fall within any of the other subsections of s 83(2) but is nonetheless considered unacceptable (Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing [2000] 1 SLR(R) 466 (‘Ng Chee Sing’) at [40]). The standard of ‘unbefitting conduct’ is less strict, and a solicitor only needs to be shown to have been guilty of such conduct as would render him unfit to remain as a member of an honourable profession. As a practical guide, it may be asked whether reasonable people, on hearing what the solicitor had done, would have said without hesitation that as a solicitor he should not have done it (Ng Chee Sing at [41], citing Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants [1989] 2 SLR(R) 633 at [17]). It is sufficient if his conduct brings him discredit as a lawyer or brings discredit to the legal profession as a whole.

[emphasis added]

The factors indicating due cause for disciplinary action

The Law Society submits that the respondent’s conduct is in and of itself sufficiently serious as to provide due cause for disciplinary action. It further argues that the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct is exacerbated by (a) his position of authority over Ms Kang, Ms Kong and Ms Tan; (b) the fact that the eight instances of misconduct appear to be part of a broader pattern of intemperate and boorish conduct; and (c) the respondent’s lack of genuine remorse.

We agree that the foregoing factors suffice to establish that there is due cause for disciplinary action. As was noted in Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy [2015] 3 SLR 1187, “[i]t is well established that the use of abusive language and unruly behaviour may constitute misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor” (at [30])....